Bye Bye Ape Man!!!

[SeraphymCrashing]

Evolution Has To Be Rethunk
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/H/HUMAN_EVOLUTION?SITE=DCTMS&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT




Really? I thought ape man was a fact and only looneys didnt believe in it. Do tell...

.

So... ape-man is a joke. Hmmm, I guess atheists better start rethinking their strategem.



So this ape-like creature co-existed with man, instead of man evolving from him..... interesting.

I don't think this research means what you think it means. Evolution has always been accepted as a wildly diverging branch not some kind of straight ladder up.

This new research just means one branch among hundreds needs to be connected in a different place.

Sort of like man and chimps today, huh? I always wondered why if man evolved from monkeys why some quit evolving and were still monkeys.

Your last point is absurd. One, monkeys and humans share a common ancestor (Humans are apes, not monkeys... one difference is the tail, or lack of). And logically this is like arguing "if I can from Europeans why are there still Germans?" It's stupid.

 

[SeraphymCrashing]

You have put your faith in science, yet science continually proves itself to be wrong. Things that you accept as fact for years, all of sudden comes crumbling down. That fossil really isnt man's grandmother, it's really his sister. Wonder what else science is wrong about? Some people are betting eternity on a discipline that constantly has to regroup and say, "Ooops, guess we were wrong. So now we think it happened this way...."

This is stupid. The beauty of science isn't that it claims to be infallible, but rather that it provides a reliable system for catching its mistakes. Was this mistake discovered by religion? Philosophy? I know, it was painters! Oh, wait it was science that corrected itself. I challenge you to find one instance of scientific error that wasn't corrected by scientists.

Gah, this is useless.

 

[Skaloop]

What was previously thought on human ancestry, simple version:

Homo habilis => Homo erectus => Homo sapiens.

What is now thought on human ancestry, simple version:

Homo habilis-----
_______\----Homo erectus => Homo sapiens

Where's the hole?

 

[ReverendDG]

You have put your faith in science, yet science continually proves itself to be wrong. Things that you accept as fact for years, all of sudden comes crumbling down. That fossil really isnt man's grandmother, it's really his sister. Wonder what else science is wrong about? Some people are betting eternity on a discipline that constantly has to regroup and say, "Ooops, guess we were wrong. So now we think it happened this way...."

Yes and this is a better way to do it than to believe that something always has been this way and is found wrong and ignoring that its wrong, like the dogma that creeps into religion

i'm a bit confused how this causes crumbling of anything first of all?
finding evidence and reevalulating that evidence is the beauty of science.

 

[Brennin]

As I posted in another thread:

I think you are justified in rejecting the hypothesized common descent of apes and humans, but not that the earth is billions of years old, if that is indeed the case with you.

 

[Brennin]

Man is an ape.

Not in this reality.

 

[ReverendDG]

Not in this reality.

What "reality"?
the fact is we fit what is defined as an ape, just because you don't like being called an ape doesn't make it any less true

the family Hominidae consisting of orangutans, gorillas, chimpanzees, and humans,[1][2] collectively known as the "great apes".

we are great apes

 

[Brennin]

What "reality"?
the fact is we fit what is defined as an ape, just because you don't like being called an ape doesn't make it any less true

the family Hominidae consisting of orangutans, gorillas, chimpanzees, and humans,[1][2] collectively known as the "great apes".

we are great apes

Primates? Yes. Apes? No.

 

[TheOutsider]

Primates? Yes. Apes? No.

Would you kindly explain the difference between apes and primates then? I honestly thought that they were the exact same thing.

 

[ReverendDG]

Primates? Yes. Apes? No.

they are apes, theres no biological reason to omit them, its only because people don't want to think they are apes, nothing more

please show how we are not apes
by the way primates are, monkeys, lemurs and apes, so pretty much calling us primates is saying we are apes

 

[Brennin]

Would you kindly explain the difference between apes and primates then? I honestly thought that they were the exact same thing.

Primate is a much larger grouping. It includes lemurs and monkeys as well as apes and humans. (And some other creatures.)

 

[SeraphymCrashing]

Primates? Yes. Apes? No.

It depends on where you want to draw the line. Apes and humans are both part of the superfamily Hominaidea. However you want to draw the line, genetically and morphologically we are not very different from apes. Its like comparing coyotes and wolves, or mice and rats.

 

[ReverendDG]

Would you kindly explain the difference between apes and primates then? I honestly thought that they were the exact same thing.

decades ago they used to separate humans from other apes, but biologists have found no reason to do so, other than personal feelings about being called an ape

but yes we are apes, and monkeys, old world monkeys to be exact

 

[Brennin]

they are apes, theres no biological reason to omit them, its only because people don't want to think they are apes, nothing more

please show how we are not apes
by the way primates are, monkeys, lemurs and apes, so pretty much calling us primates is saying we are apes

Keep repeating that mantra. The fact of the matter, however, is that we are fundamentally different in our capacity for abstract thought, ability to deny visceral urges, and the way we respond to common diseases. Also, if indels are taken into account, the genetic similarity between chimps and humans drops to only 86.7% (See Anzai, Shiina, Kimura, et al.)

 

[TheOutsider]

Ah, I didn't see your links the first time. If you want to have some fun, look up "Pongidae" in Wikipedia and see what happens.

 

[SeraphymCrashing]

Keep repeating that mantra. The fact of the matter, however, is that we are fundamentally different in our capacity for abstract thought, ability to deny visceral urges, and the way we respond to common diseases. Also, if indels are taken into account, the genetic similarity between chimps and humans drops to only 86.7% (See Anzai, Shiina, Kimura, et al.)

Behavior and thought patterns are not primary indicators of species or classification. Genetics and morphology are. Under any coherent classification system we are firmly in the same category as apes and primates.

Humans don't get some super special classification just because we are smart enough to think of things like classification.

But really in the end, any argument about classification is tiny compared to the people who are still trying to deny that we aren't somehow connected with apes, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

 

[Brennin]

Behavior and thought patterns are not primary indicators of species or classification. Genetics and morphology are. Under any coherent classification system we are firmly in the same category as apes and primates.

Humans don't get some super special classification just because we are smart enough to think of things like classification.

But really in the end, any argument about classification is tiny compared to the people who are still trying to deny that we aren't somehow connected with apes, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

I disagree, and so does the weight of years of taxonomy.

 

[Mavros]

I am bit confused with this topic, how this falsifie evolution? We already know humans coexisted with neanderthals.

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

Evolution Has To Be Rethunk
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/H/HUMAN_EVOLUTION?SITE=DCTMS&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT




Really? I thought ape man was a fact and only looneys didnt believe in it. Do tell...

.

So... ape-man is a joke. Hmmm, I guess atheists better start rethinking their strategem.



So this ape-like creature co-existed with man, instead of man evolving from him..... interesting.



Sort of like man and chimps today, huh? I always wondered why if man evolved from monkeys why some quit evolving and were still monkeys.

Interesting article, but we have always known that some hominid species lived side by side (see links below). New fossil evidence is always welcomed, as it increases our understanding of human evolution.

Only 40000 years ago there were two hominid species on the planet, Homo Sapiens and Netherlanders and possibly three if you include the recently discovered
Homo floresiensis.

All good evidence for the evolution of modern humans from a common ancestor of all the great apes.




http://www.theosophy-nw.org/theosnw/evol/ev-ibel2.htm

 

[ReverendDG]

Keep repeating that mantra. The fact of the matter, however, is that we are fundamentally different in our capacity for abstract thought, ability to deny visceral urges, and the way we respond to common diseases. Also, if indels are taken into account, the genetic similarity between chimps and humans drops to only 86.7% (See Anzai, Shiina, Kimura, et al.)

Its a mantra? whose mantra? this is what modern cladistics lists it as
sorry but your post is not really convincing and its rather irrelevant when we are talking about taxonomy

seems to me you are basically doing what i said people do. try to find any way they can to deny our relations to apes and other primates

by the way do you have any evidence i could read, otherwise most of genetics show we are at least a 96% range

edit:by the way the things about common disease is such a minor difference i don't understand why its important, the differences do not outweigh how we are alike. macaques differ from us only 7%, but are like is genetically 93%